I find it difficult to find fault in the idea of a celebate clergy. I think my feelings on this have something to do with natural selection.
Anyone???
Could I, as a non-Christian, presumably reading from the appropriate book, administer this rite? I don’t see how this would be meaningful.
The Code of Canon Law provides as follows:
The key is having the requisite intention. If you believe, in other words, that baptism is mumbo-jumbo, then I agree it would not be meaningful and you could not confer the sacrament, since your intent would not be to confer the sacrament, but some other purpose - placating a worried parent’s superstitition in a case of an infant near death, perhaps.
- Rick
By the way, as long as a priest can find a woman who wants to marry him, he can marry. He just doesn’t have permission from the Catholic church to do so. Therefore, he may not marry and remain a priest. He is still able to marry, however. LOL!
Just a little English lesson. My grandmother drilled that one into me for years.
James,
At the risk of sounding Clintonian, it all depends on what is meant by the word ‘marry.’
A priest cannot marry within the Catholic church without permission from the Pope, as I described above; the sacrament of Holy Orders creates an impediment to the sacrament of marriage. A priest cannot, then, decide on his own to leave the priesthood and marry. Moreover, the sacrament of Holy Orders, once received, creates an indelible mark on the soul - once conferred, it cannot be removed.
Of course, a priest could quit the church and obtain a civil marriage if he so chose. But since the context of the OP was marriage within the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, I would contend that even your grandmother would agree that ‘can’ and ‘cannot’ are accurate here, rather than ‘may’ and ‘may not.’
- Rick
Any old schlum can baptize a baby who is near death. When a cousin of mine almost died from pneumonia last year, all his neonatal nurse had to do was sprinkle some water on him and say “I baptize you in the name of the father, son, holy spirit”, etc. He survived and at his “official” baptism, the nurse was his godmother.
I think this was instituted because people find the idea of infant damnation rather disturbing. THe things people believe… tsk tsk
Regarding infant baptism, one priest summed up the RCC position this way, “The teaching about limbo is sort of in limbo right now.”
The RCC does baptize infants, but it is now several months after birth. Parents are required to attend classes and it’s a much bigger deal now and usually done with other babies during a regular Sunday Mass.
Exceptions are made of course.
I believe I was baptized about 2 weeks after I was born. My nephew and two nieces were all baptized about four months after they were born.
As a devout Episcopalian, I need to interject the point that priests are quite able to marry and carry on with their priestly duties – except in the Roman Rite of the RCC unless they get dispensation to do so. Our rector (=pastor) is married; her husband is her assistant.
I recall hearing something to this effect, as well (also at a Jesuit-run school). I suspect that something along these lines is closer to the truth, than merely worrying about the priest’s ability to minister to his parish if he has a wife and family. IMHO, a married priest might be better equipped to counsel the married members of his parish if he knew where they were coming from.
Though I’m wondering, why didn’t the Church simply stop ceding land to priests?